didnt know where to post this, came across the link via twitter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL
read especially the third suggestion
That was rather fabulous.
But it's so hard not to talk to them!
but it's so tempting to want to crush their souls....
"Moving past the village idiot" seems a bit of a simplistic answer to THAT big of a problem.
But stereotyping republicans as mere cultists and democrats as sane/smart people is a bit naive. I could argue its more of a greedy group of fuckers and a bunch of utopian bleeding-heart pseudo-intellectuals. (of course this is simplifying too)
I find that, collectively, the Democrats and the Republicans embody all of the salient traits of the American Founding Fathers. The Democrats promote freedom and societal advancement, and the Republicans are rich white guys who are always bitching about their taxes being too high :D
Seems to be an extension of Rule 14: Do not argue with trolls -it means they win. Most of the idiots are loudmouthed attention whores with zero critical thinking skills. Ignore them and they will go away... or they will get louder and more annoying and start marching in the streets with pitchforks and teabags on their heads. :x
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 27, 2009, 03:27:51 AM
I find that, collectively, the Democrats and the Republicans embody all of the salient traits of the American Founding Fathers. The Democrats are rich white guys who don't bitch about their taxes being too high, and the Republicans are rich white guys who are always bitching about their taxes being too high :D
Fix'd for accuracy.
The problem with ignoring them IRL is that they don't go off to another site (country) after they get bored of being ignored, they will stick around regardless, and continue to be idiots. And will likely become more insistent, if history teaches us anything.
On one hand, you don't want to legitimate their claims by taking every piece of meth-inspired paranoia seriously and if it was in fact an allegation made by responsible people who should be listened to. On the other hand, they're going to continue as idiots unless some sort of adequate response is found, and probably go deeper into their idiocy.
Peer pressure may not work, especially when a plurality agree with them. And education likely isn't the key, since they can withdraw into the alternate, fantasy world of Movement "journalism" by only reading what World Net Daily or RedState thinks they need to know (you can throw as many facts at them as you like, if they think you are part of the human smuggling Communist terrorist sex slave ring of ACORN, they're going to dismiss you as a liar and fraud from the outset).
I may have an answer, but its part of a larger piece I'm working on, so obviously I don't want to say anything just yet.
Sounds intriguing Cain! I'm two years into a project which bears a passing resemblance to this concept:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristica_universalis"It is true that I once planned a new method of calculation proper to subjects having nothing in common with mathematics, and if this manner of Logic were put into practice, all reasoning, even analogical ones, would be carried out in a mathematical way. Then modest intellects could, with diligence and good will, not accompany but at least follow greater ones. For one could always say "let us calculate" and judge properly, insofar as reason and the data can furnish us the means to do so. But I do not know whether I will ever be able to execute such a project, one requiring more than one hand, and it would even seem that humanity is not yet sufficiently mature to pretend to the advantages to which this method could lead."
But "good will" is a critical requirement. When your opponent is already reaching their objectives by being irrational, you cannot motivate them to be more rational while it is not in their interests to do so.
There is little to no penalty for being selectively irrational.
Exactly. From a purely utilitarian point of view, acting crazy doesn't really impose harsh penalties within the US (and increasingly, European) political systems. Sure, the GOP went into overdrive in the last election, and still lost, but it took Katrina, Iraq and the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression to actually cast doubt on their chances of victory. It was a close run thing, at a time when they should have been utterly discredited.
And bringing out the nutters to flood the town halls has proven very effective at intimidating others to give their opinions and thus leading the terms of debate. Acting crazy when it comes to foreign policy is actually seen as being manly and responsible, no matter how many failures it brings about.
In a two party system in particular, you can go as crazy as you like, because eventually the other party will screw up, people will get sick of their corruptness and unjustified sense of entitlement of their positions, something will go wrong and they will be thrown in. And in the meantime, well, the media knows what sells, and badmouthing the government on the basis of personality politics (as opposed to real issues) is both safe, and yet exciting enough to bring in advertisers.
...wow, I got real-depressed, real-fast, realizing this article described talking to my parents. Every damned point he brought up. And it's not like they're stupid, they're just mired in their own heads...firmly entrenched in what they think they know. Stubborn beyond all possible belief in anything outside of what they really do believe. Whatever evidence to the contrary. The old "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" is what you come up against (that's a quote from Simon & Garfunkel). And it's head-bashing-brickwallingly frustrating, too.
I have given up on my mother. My father, he's another kettle of fish. We'll see when he gets out how far he's actually come out of his mental prison of "no fine lines." I have a feeling he's towing a certain line in the field of denial so he can get by. I can't blame the man for that--prison would create MANY voices in my own damned head.
But the great amount of force and predominance they still have in my life, my brothers' lives and so then by extrapolation our kids' and spouses' lives means that coming to some sort of middle ground vis a vis evolution...the GOP...Jebus...has to be found if we're ever to have a peaceful Xmas celebration when my dad gets out.
...or we'll just all sit around getting drunk like we used to. :|
i'm sorry if this article made you depressed, Jenne. it's probably a good kind, like scratching an itch, but i'm sorry cause it's so much easier to inflict that on someone else ..
where are all these idiots? I mean apparently the PVV is battling to become the largest party over here, yet I don't know a single fuckhead that will admit they'd vote for mr Wilders (hell, at least I met one or two Pim Fortuyn voters back in the day). I mean, he wanted to tax hijaabs (which is so retarded if only for the reason of practicality)
Oh it's not your fault my parents have their heads up their asses. It's just sad to realize this will probably always be the case. But it's not like I'm alone in that respect. Heh.
I really get pissed of by people who are like " What, you believe in that evolution bulshit!? There's no evidence on that. It's just a theory". Yeah, no evidence my ass. Well here's something interensting for you - the bible isn't even based on theories. It's just an old book.
My parents are hardcore christians, who think that if something bad happens to anyone it's because of them not believing in god, so I have given up on telling them, that I don't believe the bible bullshit.
But the thing that pisses me of the most is that they include that bullshit in school. In the "Psychology and Logic" textbook, there are 4 pages explaining that atheists are an ignorant minority refusing to accept the "scientific proof" of the existence of god and then 4 more pages of miracles "prooving" god exists. And thats the school book all high schools textbook use, because it's the official approved of teh government school book.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2009, 06:12:56 PM
Exactly. From a purely utilitarian point of view, acting crazy doesn't really impose harsh penalties within the US (and increasingly, European) political systems. Sure, the GOP went into overdrive in the last election, and still lost, but it took Katrina, Iraq and the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression to actually cast doubt on their chances of victory. It was a close run thing, at a time when they should have been utterly discredited.
I watched a lot of American news last year - the false equivalence seemed to have no logical foundation other than a knee-jerk attempt at journalistic integrity. The fear and guilt mongers of the GOP seemed to inflict the media with a crippling self-consciousness - I guess that manipulation of fear is what they do best.
I mean. Sarah Palin. Seriously. A healthy media is supposed to ward against such atrocities. Though it did send a message to all the undereducated opinionated people out there that they to could some day make the big leagues if they just had the right attitude.
How to talk to complete idiots - make them feel empowered for buying your brand of stupidity.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2009, 06:12:56 PM
In a two party system in particular, you can go as crazy as you like, because eventually the other party will screw up, people will get sick of their corruptness and unjustified sense of entitlement of their positions, something will go wrong and they will be thrown in. And in the meantime, well, the media knows what sells, and badmouthing the government on the basis of personality politics (as opposed to real issues) is both safe, and yet exciting enough to bring in advertisers.
I haven't followed UK politics much since I left - I recall that the two party system persisted, despite credible alternatives, seemingly due to a fear of "the other party" getting into power - has that changed much? Are there examples of systems with any number of political parties where it doesn't end up the same way?
No, things haven't changed much. The Lib Dems are still derided as useless and never able to attain power by people who are usually sympathetic to their policies and disenchanted with the other two main parties. Last polls had the Lib Dems at 18%, Labour at 24% and the Tories at 44%, IIRC. And while Labour are useless, its not like the Tories, Cameron's own minority clique aside, are any better. They're not batshit insane...but they would have refused to bail anyone out over the recession, which would have caused the national economy to collapse, they still hate gays and immigrants and the EU etc. So the Nasty Party lives on.
Usually multiparty states like Germany and Israel, where they have to rely on coalitions, are a little more complex. I haven't followed them enough to deduce any general principles about their workings, though.
Quote from: DALEKK on September 28, 2009, 03:35:15 PM
I really get pissed of by people who are like " What, you believe in that evolution bulshit. There's no evidence on that. It's just a theory". Yeah, no evidence my ass. Well here's something interensting for you - the bible isn't even based on theories. It's just an old book.
My parents are hardcore christians, who think that if something bad happens to anyone it's because of them not believing in god, so I have given up on telling them, that I don't believe the bible bullshit.
But the thing that pisses me of the most is that they include that bullshit in school. In the "Psychology and Logic" textbook, there are 4 pages explaining that atheists are an ignorant minority refusing to accept the "scientific proof" of the existence of god and then 4 more pages of miracles "prooving" god exists. And thats the school book all high textbook use, because it's the official approved of teh government school book.
Wow, that's scary. And explains a lot about what's wrong with this bobdamned country of ours. I escaped that level of fundamentalism in school, though I got it in spades at church growing up.
My husband in talking to his brothers over the weekend described Christian fundamentalists as the "Talibs of the US"...I thought he went a bit far, but he had some good comparisons for his reasoning nonetheless.
What state are you in, again?
No, DALEKK.
I'm wondering what kind of retards are working that state's board of education.
DALEKK is in Bulgaria. I don't really want to stereotype the place, but everything I have seen about the country, Sofia aside, suggests it is kind of the Appalachians of Europe.
I'm guessing if the Bulgarian Orthodox Church isn't the state religion, it at very least has masses of political clout.
Oh ok. I was think it was Texas. Lmao.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2009, 06:12:56 PM
Exactly. From a purely utilitarian point of view, acting crazy doesn't really impose harsh penalties within the US (and increasingly, European) political systems. Sure, the GOP went into overdrive in the last election, and still lost, but it took Katrina, Iraq and the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression to actually cast doubt on their chances of victory. It was a close run thing, at a time when they should have been utterly discredited.
And bringing out the nutters to flood the town halls has proven very effective at intimidating others to give their opinions and thus leading the terms of debate. Acting crazy when it comes to foreign policy is actually seen as being manly and responsible, no matter how many failures it brings about.
In a two party system in particular, you can go as crazy as you like, because eventually the other party will screw up, people will get sick of their corruptness and unjustified sense of entitlement of their positions, something will go wrong and they will be thrown in. And in the meantime, well, the media knows what sells, and badmouthing the government on the basis of personality politics (as opposed to real issues) is both safe, and yet exciting enough to bring in advertisers.
Holy fucking prophecy batman.
:lulz: :lulz: :horrormirth: